Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Lansing Street permit dispute, orders DBI site visit and photographs
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued the appeal by Pat Buskovich regarding a permit pulled by Lambert Development Lansing LLC for work at 40–50 Lansing Street that allegedly affected 15 Guy Place; the board ordered a DBI site visit with photographs and continued the matter to Jan. 18, 2012, while urging parties to pursue settlement.
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal Nov. 16 by Pat Buskovich challenging a Department of Building Inspection permit tied to work at 40–50 Lansing Street that Buskovich said encroached on and undermined the deck and underpinning of an adjacent rent‑controlled building at 15 Guy Place.
Appellant Pat Buskovich told the board he had observed underpinning and shoring that he says was executed on his property, left debris and temporary shoring in place, and left a tenant access point unsecured. Buskovich asked the board to direct the permit holder to prepare plans, complete a survey to show property‑line limits, and return with a clear scope so the deck (and firewall issues) could be safely repaired. Claudia Frazier, current owner of 15 Guy Place, described years of unresolved promises and asked the board to protect tenant safety.
Kevin Rose, counsel for the permit holder Lambert Development Lansing LLC (Rubin & Junius), said the permit at issue was limited to removing leftover formwork/wood and that prior underpinning and license agreements with the prior owner authorized aspects of the work; Rose said DBI had inspected previously and that his client had attempted settlement negotiations.
DBI staff (Joseph Duffy) told the board that the subject permit appeared to be for removal of formwork and that DBI could perform a site inspection and take photographs to clarify what remained and whether removal would affect deck stability. Appellant counsel Andrew Zacks argued that the core safety issue required structural plans that show what will replace any removed formwork so that work does not compromise the appellant's building.
After discussion the board voted 5–0 to continue the matter to Jan. 18, 2012, request DBI to perform a site visit and submit photographs for the record, limit additional briefing, and ask the parties to pursue settlement. The board also asked DBI to hold enforcement of the NOV&P while the parties and DBI pursue those fact‑finding steps. The matter will return to the Board of Appeals on Jan. 18 for further consideration.
